User talk:Fram/Archive 19

Living people
Thanks for your reaction. Based on your previous posts there and this edit, I am not surprised at your opinion. Nor am I burning and blazing to get it removed. But I do think it would be more proper to maintain a distinction between maintenance templates and informational templates. Let's see how the discussion will evolve. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/Northern_S%C3%A1mi_Wikipedia
It would have only been polite to leave a note of some sorts for the bureaucrats and admins on the Northern Sámi wikipedia at the same time you decided to take this to AfD. -Yupik (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? We don't leave notes for other websites were the articles are deleted, redirected or merged. Nothing is done to the Northern Sami Wikipedia, the discussion was about the English Wikipedia article. I wouldn't expect to be heard if the Northern Sami Wikipedia would have a discussion about their article on the English Wikipedia either. Fram (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles
No, check my editing history, I haven't created those articles under this account. The reason why is because I am now focusing on quality, expanding geo articles. Look at articles like Ma-ubin if you don't believe me.... Himalayan  11:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah when we hit 3 million actually it suddenly dawned on me, it is just a figure, most of our existing articles are very poor and need my attention. I'd be happy actually if you deleted the Yemen stubs that Blofeld created anyway. The thing is since a few editors have added geo coordinates and spent some time sorting them out. If you could merge into a list with the coordinates given in the articles this would be better than completely deleting I think.... I think you'd find most of them are actually valid settlements. But the major problem is lack of web sources to expand and lack of anybody working on Yemen articles. I don't think there is much point in these articles hanging round. I have tried to expand a few but there is literally nothing on the web to flesh them out except geo databases like falling rain which are unreliable. Personally I think falling rain should be blacklisted as although coordinates are usually correct the other data usually isn't.. I think the best thing to do about sub stubs which use unreliable databases especially on countries in the developing world would be to merge them intoa list. Ther eisn't much point in having say 700 articles in one category and 698 of them all being one liners that at the present me can't access the knowledge to expand them, agreed? Himalayan  11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My major concern is that while some of them clearly do appear to be settlements which you can see my satellite, a worrying number of them just look like desert or just terrain and little evidence can be seen that they really exist, neither is there much proof online to verify their existence when most of the mentioning of it is by geo databases generated in the Internet ancient period of 1995-1996. It is not always easy to do, so I think in a lot of cases, particularly if there is no government sources/population data census data online a tabled list with coordinates would be better?? The thing is most of them are real places in the real world it is just the terrible uneveness of the web info for many developing Asian and African countries on here that makes it difficult for us to know what the place really is, you know a hamlet in the desrt or actually a thriving small town.. User:Calliopejen1 also shares my enthusiasm for the world on here but she also believes than generating stubs based on very questionable databses isn't a good idea in seperate articles anyway. At least in some places info is gradually becoming available online, which may have some information about small towns so I believe they should be created when we have access to it, not create a bunch of sub stubs and leave them hanging around for years and being unedited. I know I only created those Yemen stubs about 4 weeks ago but believe me I have completely changed my outlook on here as how to go about building wikipedia whilst not affecting quality.. Himalayan  11:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend something like this:

What are your thoughts about this. Also World Gazetteer has some data on the top ffew hundred or so towns. Maybe we ought to use that as a guideline for main cities and towns? Himalayan   11:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think if population data from 2004 is known which confirms it as a town, we should keep articles like Al-Ghurfah I think and just redirects the ones where so further data can be found? Himalayan   12:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that is a massive task, certainly because e.g. the Tageo name and World Gazetteer name don't match. Some are identifiable (just with or without diacritics, like Ghadran) but others are different enough to make you wonder if they are the same place or not (Yashi` vs. Yah̨īş) or can't just be found (we don't have an article on Taw'ar, but World Gazetteer lists it as having some 3000 inhabitants). I'm stil thinking about what will be the best way to proceed, balancing time spent on it with result (kepping good things, removing unreliable stuff). I'll work on it, but not immediately probably. Fram (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Cantalupo di Bevagno -> Cantalupo di Bevagna
Thanks for sorting out the move! Cheers, Ian Spackman (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sig
Hello! Just a quick note... in your top post here, you did not sign. I am not sure if we are allowed even if allowed, how to sign for anyone, but just wanted to give you a heads up. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for your opinion
Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one
Per:

Could you close: Articles_for_deletion/Sula_Kim, User:Pastor Theo has been indef blocked. Ikip (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Lord John Grey page
Sorry, but may I ask why the page is marked as unsourced? Most other pages about fictional characters aren't, and they certainly don't cite anything, not even the series/books from which they came.--little Alex (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then those other pages need to be marked as unsourced as well. Articles about fiction are not exempt from our WP:V /WP:RS / WP:N rules. That most pages about fictional characters and so on are in a poor state is no reason to ignore this. As to why this article specifically was tagged: I often use the "random article" function, and then I tag every article I encounter that is unsourced, no matter if it is about a character, a person, a village, ... Fram (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein's admin review
FWIW, Killer Chihuahua is female; changing the pronouns might make it a bit easier to follow, too; it's hard to tell if you are talking about Giano, Sandstein, or KC when you use "he", especially since KC is a "she".  Horologium  (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try to correct it. I'm always using "he" for everyone, it's a bit careless of me... Fram (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Creating pages on non notable parishes
Your action is the act of VANDALISM. Since when historic "parishes" are not notable?. Prove it first. As the Administrator, you should act more responsible. Part of your responsibility is to improve it not remove it. This parish is one of the Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England--WlaKom (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You should be never the Administrator of Wikipedia. Your action to remove all historical catholic parishes (all of them have listed reliable sources) is an Act of Religious discrimination. --WlaKom (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * See Discrimination--WlaKom (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles
Hello Fram, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:
 * PROD removed from Our Lady of Perpetual Help Parish, Quaker Hill, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318029525 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Joseph Parish, Rockville, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318029483 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Mary of Czestochowa Parish, Middletown, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318029597 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Holy Name of Jesus Parish, Stamford, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318029645 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Anthony of Padua Parish, Fairfield, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318029743 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish, Danbury, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318029790 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Michael the Archangel Parish, Bridgeport, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318029844 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, Waterbury, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318029914 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from SS. Peter and Paul Parish, Wallingford, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318029966 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Hedwig Parish, Union City, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318030041 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Casimir Parish,Terryville, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318030124 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Mary Parish, Torrington, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318030074 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Joseph Parish, Suffield, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318030173 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Immaculate Conception Parish, Southington, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318030243 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Stanislaus Parish, New Haven, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318030323 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Holy Cross Parish, New Britain, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318030876 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Sacred Heart Parish, New Britain, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318030978 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Stanislaus Parish, Meriden, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031041 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Stanislaus Parish, Bristol, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031256 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Michael the Archangel Parish, Derby, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031197 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Adalbert Parish, Enfield, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031146 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from SS. Cyril and Methodius Parish, Hartford, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031101 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Stanislaus Parish, Adams, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032409 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to prove not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Joseph Parish, Ansonia, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031354 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Joseph Parish, Central Falls, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032962 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Anthony of Padua Parish, Chicopee, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032370 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Stanislaus Bishop & Martyr's Parish, Chicopee, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032335 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to prove not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Joseph Parish, Claremont, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032561 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Our Lady of Jasna Gora Parish, Clinton, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032877 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Our Lady of Czestochowa Parish, Coventry, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318033028 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Stanislaus Bishop & Martyr's Parish, South Deerfield, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031661 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Andrew Bobola Parish, Dudley, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032799 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to prove not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Sacred Heart of Jesus Parish, Easthampton, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032247 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Joseph Parish, Gardner, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032757 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Sacred Heart Parish, Greenfield, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032196 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Holy Rosary Parish, Hadley, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032161 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Holy Trinity Parish, Hatfield, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032086 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Mater Dolorosa Parish, Holyoke, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032015 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from All Saints Parish, Housatonic, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031948 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Christ the King Parish, Ludlow, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031850 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Stanislaus Parish, Nashua, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032518 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. John Cantius Parish, Northampton, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031803 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Holy Family Parish, Pittsfield, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031744 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to prove not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Louis Parish, Portland, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032450 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Adalbert Parish, Providence, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318033065 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Hedwig Parish, Southbridge, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032679 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Immaculate Conception Parish, Springfield, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031897 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Our Lady of the Rosary Parish, Springfield, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031617 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to prove not notability)'
 * PROD removed from SS. Peter and Paul Parish, Three Rivers, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031578 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to prove not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Our Lady of Czestochowa Parish, Turners Falls, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031505 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Mary Parish, Ware, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031466 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to prove not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Casimir Parish, Warren, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318033095 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to prove not noatability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Stanislaus Parish, West Warren, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318032601 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from Holy Trinity Parish, Westfield, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318031416 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to indicate not notability)'
 * PROD removed from St. Stanislaus Kostka Parish, Woonsocket, by User:WlaKom, with summary '(Undid revision 318033157 by Fram (talk)No supporting evidence to prove not noatability)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandal
Is Fram a vandal? The question is asked. Please answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.177.247.202 (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer is "no". Fram is somebody who thinks these parishes are not each and every one of them suitable for a stand-alone encyclopedia article (as opposed to entry in the Catholic Directory). The way to respond is to explain why you think they might be. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Fram a vandal? No. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. If someone, without thinking, seeks to remove about 60 articles within 10 minutes, ignoring sources and the complexity of the project. Such actions are unacceptable.--WlaKom (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Cameron Scott and Paularblaster. Fram is following due process; the proper response is to actually give a reason why these parishes might be considered notable in and of themselves. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Red links
Apologies re red links. When I'm doing clean up, I sometimes go the limit. l also feel a need to write the copy for red links. You're right about Ritt, so in future I'll try to write that one. Pepso2 (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. It did get on my nerves a bit though... Fram (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Currency in Dumas' Musketeer novels
Hello Fram, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Currency in Dumas' Musketeer novels has been removed. It was removed by Solicitr with the following edit summary ' (Object to deletion- see Discussion) '. Please consider discussing your concerns with Solicitr before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
I nominated the article at the AfD. Tim1357 (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
Somewhere I read about not building memorials honouring vandalism, maybe RBI? If I did this would be about twenty or so which I'm sure pales to many. In any case appreciate your reverting the nonsense whatever it was. I just don't see any use in giving them any energy or added attention. In any case thank you again! -- Banj e b oi   11:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your threats
Your threats to Jack are out of line. Jack can endorse views at an RfC (note that he has not participated the entire time it was running, while others were taking shot after shot at him, he just turned the other cheek) and he can vote in RfAs. You do not get to unilaterally impose sanctions like that, especially given the lack of consensus the last time this was brought up. I suggest you stop, or you may find yourself sanctioned. The next comment that you make to Jack, if it's other than one of the form "I'm sorry, I went too far and I'm dropping this" will result in my raising this at AN/I. ++Lar: t/c 10:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed you ignoring his disruption the last time I discussed them, but complaining then that the location of my response was incorrect. Feel free to start any ANI thread you want though, but don't expect me to agree with you after that previous incident. As for lack of consensus, I'm glad you so thoroughly agree with Jack Merridew about this, but most people did seem to agree that I was spot on as to what Jack Merridew was supposed to do. The only oppose was about my statement about A Nobody, but stated "Though I will reverse my opinion if this proposal garners enough support to simply apply it to JM and not merely suggest it." So basically, there was no opposition to the proposal wrt Jack Merridew, and some people supported it. To read this as a "lack of consensus" is a very one sided view of that section. Fram (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well *I've* got AN/I watchlisted. Do note that I'm at UTC+8 so I've only a few hours left on here today. I'll check back tomorrow, though. Oh, replied at my page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, your threats are out of line, you do not get to unilaterally modify the conditions of Jack's return. They are also singularly unhelpful, starting with a threat is the wrong approach. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't modify the conditions of his return, I warn him that his current behaviour will lead to him being blocked, a move for which there was considerable support at the ANI section, with many people already agreing to a ban at that time. The only difference is that, withhis history, he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt anymore, no series of escalating blocks and so on. Being unbanned does not mean that whatever happened in the past is to be ignored and forgotten, although it means that he doesn't get blocked for pre-ban edits. Warning him that current actions and behaviour may lead to a new block is not "unilaterally modifying the conditions of his return", it's applying dispute resolution procedures. As for "starting...", I think this has gone on long enough already so the word is not really applicable. Fram (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The ANI was 6 months ago. The discussion ended up saying both parties needed to work to resolve differences and to disengage.... IF both parties agreed and abided. What we have seen from Jack is an effort to do that, with some backsliding (we are none of us perfect, after all), but in my view mostly successful. What we have seen from A Nobody a failure to abide by the terms or to seek to work meaningfully to resolve the matter. (this can be seen at more recent discussions as well, such as John Vandenberg's talk page where he called for Jack's head and refused to agree to change anything about himself) He is thumbing his nose at the community... "more often than not not helpful and often actively annoying", as you yourself said... I don't think you should be threatening Jack with a block for endorsing an RfC that has been running almost a month, which contained shot after shot taken at him by Ikip, and with no participation by the subject. Jack didn't comment, didn't escalate, he merely endorsed some views... and he used a bare signature, not even the words that others used. Seriously, please reconsider your position here. I am pretty confident that if this goes to AN/I you will be admonished. Jack is not the bad guy you make him out to be... ++Lar: t/c 12:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with anyone taking action against A Nobody if and when needed. Jack Merridew was unlucky enough to make some comments about A Nobody on pages I was actively looking at, like the Kww RFC: I acted on what I noticed, I have not set out to look at theactions of either of them (or by Ikip). And I was not threatening the block for endorsing the RfC, pleae go and reread the discussion. I didn't start that thread because of the RfC, but because of the RfA. I only commented on the RfC because he left it well alone for the whole duration, but just happened to endorse 7 views first thing after I warned him to stay awayfrom A Nobody. To endorse views on an RfC is not a problem, but to do so with such an unlucky timing is telling. Fram (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not listening to what I said. A 6 month old discussion that called for things to happen which did not happen is no basis for your threats. Threaten Jack again without first discussing the issues with him, and I will take it to AN/I. ++Lar: t/c 13:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * One of you previous comments here was "The next comment that you make to Jack, if it's other than one of the form "I'm sorry, I went too far and I'm dropping this" will result in my raising this at AN/I." I did since post in the very same thread, but not to apologize. Now again you make the same "threat" of starting an AN/I. Ooh, I'm so scared. Why don't you just go ahead and do so instead ofsimply repeating yourself and Jack Merridew here? As for the ANI discussion being six months old, it is just because it is six months old that I warned him again, just like I did on WT:AFD some time ago (you know, where you didn't mind Jack Merridew's comments about A Nobody but faulted me for replying to it on that page instead of somewhere else). If it would have been closer together, he would have been blocked. Now, I repeated the earlier warning. Don't you think he is quite aware of the issues by now? Fram (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * " Ooh, I'm so scared." ??? Not exactly a very constructive approach you have here, is it? Forget the request for an apology, one can't force apologies. But if you again open with a threat after a new incident, it won't be good. Open with dialog, not threats. Please. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rest assured, if a similar incident happens in the near future, I won't start with threaths. Fram (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If by that you meant that you would block first, that would not be good at all. If by that you mean that you would raise your concerns first (by, for example, contacting John to discuss the matter), that would be goodness. I hope you meant the latter. Can you clarify? ++Lar: t/c 14:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Jack should avoid mentioning A Nobody where it isn't necessary, and I agree that this comment could have been delivered without the A Nobody/Ikip part. I am also disappointed by these, as Jack had steered clear of that RfC until now. I do see where you are coming from, but I also know that Jack has been trying, and is receptive to advice from the mentors. I am sorry he was not more receptive to your initial advice that he should "Drop it".

However in your second message you did threaten to block him, and that isn't necessary or supported by the arbitration committee decision. The unban allows for uninvolved admins to block him for violations of the conditions they set out. The conditions do not restrict him from commenting on A Nobody, and the community also declined to restrict him in that manner. Also, you are the only admin who opposed Jacks unban, and you are now threatening to ban him without warning, so I can see why he views you as "involved".

If he unnecessarily comments on A Nobody again in the next two months, I will start or endorse an RFC. Until then, some advice and constructive criticism at Editor review/Jack Merridew is probably needed. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of that editor review (gives you an idea of how actively I am following him :-)), and again, my block was not based on the arbcom restrictions, but on current behaviour, with that difference that with his history, there is no need to go through the 24 hour - 48 hour - ... routine for similar behaviour. Having said that, I will, if I happen to notice other comments or actions I don't approve of, contact you instead of taking action myself. Fram (talk) 14:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

@both; I will, and have, refrained from unnecessary comment on that pair for on the order of six months. My Editor Review has been open for 3 weeks and has been prominently mentioned on my user page, to no avail.

@Fram; I'm fine with you raising concerns with John, or Moreschi or Cas. I do stand by my view that I'm a messenger here, and I'm quite glad to see others sharing the same concerns. I tried to have a chat with you before; we could try again. I'm a reasonable person and, as noted by both of us, we have a bit of common ground.

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 14:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs
Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

On my 'minor edits'.
Please read Assume good faith (something about 'practice what you preach') and for the rest; ga boeven vangen.HP1740-B (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

83rd Wallajahbad Light Infantry
Why have you deleted the discussion page from 83rd Wallajahbad Light Infantry? The article was there all along, but its Talk page is now lost.--FwdObserver (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!


As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Motley's Crew update
Excuse me Fram but you evaluated my Motley's Crew article about a year or so. Since then, I did some expansion on the article. Would you please kindly re-evaluate the article to see if it deserves to be promoted to C-class status? GVnayR (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding block
Hello Fram, earlier this year you indefinitely blocked the user with IP 86.83.155.44 for disruptive editing after he had been blocked multiple times on this Wikipedia (see this blocklog). Besides that block that also prevented him from creating an user account, his user and talk page were cleared, a message explaining the user is indefinitely blocked was put in place and these pages were protected from editing. Yesterday the same user started editing here under his new user account: User:D.A._Borgdorff. As can be seen from his contributions so far, he copied the old discussions from previous talk page (the history of those pages were not deleted) including parts that were about importing problems from other Wikipedia's. As can be seen in his recent contributions he still uses his nickname 'dAb' and/or 'D.A. Borgdorff' just as he did when he was still working anonymously from that IP address. So there is no reason to doubt this is the same user who is now avoiding the block for the IP address by editing under a username. - Robotje (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, obvious case, indef blocked. Fram (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Belgian political parties
I should have talked with you before doing the moves and I'm sorry about that. However I'm not convinced by your interpretation of Naming conventions (political parties), item 4. Belgium is definitely a multilingual country, but not in the sense that there are minority parties. The parties on which we are talking about are mainstream parties whose names should be translated in English: there is no reason for not doing just that, en.Wikipedia needs uniformity! Almost every European political party, no matter the country, has an article with and English title. Don't you agree that users would find more easy to understand the name of the parties if the titles are in English? I'm sure that if you think a little bit about it you will agree with me: having the articles' titles in English is more practical and correct for an English encyclopedia. I hope we can set the issue by ourselves, otherwise I will bring the issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties or to a broader constituency of editors. --Checco (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That naming convention says nothing about minority parties in that exception. The names in English may be more practical, but I doubt it. It certainly is not more correct (why would our translation of the name of a political party be more correct than the name used by the party itself, official documents, and most national and international media?). The English tranlation of the name of the party should be given in the first sentence of the article lead, but should not be the title of the article. Fram (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So why ALL articles about European political parties have English titles? I urge you to think again on the issue... Why do you want this exception to the general rule? I hope that you will understand that praticality and uniformity are very important reasons for having also the articles about Belgian parties with English titles. --Checco (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Switzerland: Eidgenössische Sammlung, À gauche toute! Genève, Mouvement citoyens genevois, Partei National Orientierter Schweizer, Parti Libéral Genevois, solidaritéS, Volkspartei der Schweiz. Faroër: Hin Stuttligi Flokkurin, Vinnuflokkurin. Germany: Bund der Deutschen, Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität, Die PARTEI, Völkisch-Social Bloc, Deutsche Reichspartei, Volkssozialistische Bewegung Deutschlands/Partei der Arbeit, Reichspartei für Volksrecht und Aufwertung, Schleswig-Holsteinische Bauern- und Landarbeiterdemokratie. France: Bloc des gauches, Combats Souverainistes, Parti de l'Ordre, Union populaire française, Europe Écologie, ADFE-Français du Monde, Abertzaleen Batasuna(!), Corsica Nazione, Herritarren Zerrenda. Ireland: éirígí, Fianna Fáil, Saor Éire, Sinn Féin. I have obviously not checked all European countries, and Belgium is one of the few multilingual ones anyway (Switzerland is the main other one). Anyway, don't capitalize "all" when it is not really, actually true, as a very short search would have shown. Fram (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of these are minority parties (item 4 is about them, of course) or minor parties, while the two major Irish parties have Irish-titled articles because English media use the Irish names too for them, others need to have an English article too. Minority parties and Irish parties are exactly what I meant when I spoke of exceptions and these are reasonable ones. I don't understand why Belgian parties should be an exception, so I will bring the issue to a broad constituency of editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties. See you there. --Checco (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Fram (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Josette Baujot
Got anything to add to this new article, Josette Baujot? :) BOZ (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ALthough I must have encountered her name when reading some Hergé biographies, I did not recall her at all until I read this article, and have nothing to add to it. Her notability is truly borderline, in my opinion.

About Classic Comics...
Just a heads up... but all but 2 of the image, Tale of Two Cities and The Prince and The Pauper, from the gallery you removed were Commons links which use a PD tag. Even the infobox image has a PD version in Commons.

Now, while I agree, the gallery is not needed, all it really needed to conform to image use policy was the removal of 2 image and the flipping of the infobox to the Commons image.

- J Greb (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any evidence that the claim on commons is correct though? When there is no evidence that the copyright has not been renewed, we have to consider it to be copyrighted. The company was active at the time of the need for copyright renewal, so it seems strange that they would have let the copyright on their comics expire. Fram (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got a problem with that... IIUC, we are supposed to assume, barring good evidence at hand, that the information posted to Commons is solid. Not ask "are you sure" every time the image is used. That sort of negates part of the purpose of the Commons
 * That being said, if there is something, putting the images up for deletion there might mot be a bad idea.
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen too many "wrong" images at Commons to believe the claims made there outright. The images for Classic Comics have no indication apart from the uploaders say-so that the copyright indeed wasn't renewed. For a company that was still in business producing those comics in 1971, the lack of renewal is not something to be taken for granted (although it is of course possible). Just like I don't take anything on Wikipêdia at face value, I don't automatically presume that Commons is correct. Fram (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Reversion on my user page
Thanks for catching this; I was just about to do the same thing. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Note
For what it is worth, good spot with User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript Publishing sells free articles as expensive books. I regret that I failed to notice it myself and this revelation has sparked my curiosity as well. The history of Georgia example on that link is astonishing. I wonder how much of that actually goes on? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 15:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, to answer your question about what specifically can be merged, please consider Battles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe and Battle_of_Lepanto_(1571). Hanson's quotation that "To sixteenth century Christians, the sudden muster and vast size of the Christian fleet at Lepanto were proof of Christ to resist the Muslim onslaught" demonstrates the religious significance of the victory to the comabtants and would help flesh in that short section of the main articles.  The entries on this list contain various such examples that indeed are not duplicative of the main battle articles and for which we can actually augment those battle articles, notice references that appear in the article under discussion at Battles_of_macrohistorical_importance_involving_invasions_of_Europe, but not in the individual ones:


 * Battle_of_Thermopylae: Grote and Grant from the list article could be used in the battle article, which does not cite them.
 * Battle_of_the_Metaurus: The battle article has few references. The content cited from Davis in the list article is different from the citation in the battle article.  Thus, this and possibly the other reference from this list would add new content/sourcing to the battle article.
 * Battle_of_Chalons: The list article uses Fuller and Davis, which again, the battle article does not. Merging these items would certainly strengthen the sections of the battle article on importance/aftermath.
 * Battle of Toulouse (721) contains NO internally cited statements, whereas the list article features SIX citations that can be used in the battle article, thereby taking an article on a major battle with no footnotes and adding at least six to it.

Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Bochon
Hello,

Can you watch the page Anthony Bochon?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheb Youyou (talk • contribs) 12:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Energy being image
Thanks for your concern regarding the energy being image in the article. The image is a clear artistic interpretation that has been added to give the reader an idea of what an energy being is. The image is not to be taken as a factual reference but as an interpretation and it is a part of a series of self made SVG format illustration that seeks to illustrate the series of alleged alien beings. This illustrations resemble the information provided in the article and give the user a reference on what the being might look like compared to a human. Please do not remove it again. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article reads:

Rather than being literally composed of energy in the physical sense, energy beings are typically rendered as being composed of a translucent glowing fluid, somewhat in common with the representations of ghosts.


 * The image is an illustration. Why are you against adding an illustration that interprets the sense of the article and ads to the quality of such?. The image is a self-made contribution that forms part of the set I specifically made for the List of alleged alien beings. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert
Hi Fram, it looks like HP1740-B isn't going to respond to the comments made at the Wikiquette alert. But hopefully he/she has read the comments made there and taken them into consideration. I hope that that is sufficient. Kind regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 12:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts. Let's hope that indeed something will change when he resumes editing. Fram (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fram makes me believe in Wikipedia again
I almost posted this on the review, but felt it would be best to post this here.


 * My respect for Fram in this situation has been phenominal, a barnstar on her talk page would not be enough to convey this deep respect. Just this summer she was arguing with me fiercely and our interactions have never been without conflict. Too often I think the norm is that editors justify behavior no matter how egregious, just because the editor has a similar viewpoint. So it is really heartening and inspiring to see someone who can see wrong and act upon it, no matter who the editors are. Fram makes me believe in Wikipedia again. I dont know if this endorsement from me is helpful or harmful, but I would support an Arbcom nomination for Fram in a heartbeat, despite our continued entrenched differences.

Ikip (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

One opinion instead of five?
I may be a member of ARS, but does my actively trying to actually improve articles mandate that my opinion somehow means less? I have responded to you at the DRV. Best,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of male performers in gay porn films
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of male performers in gay porn films. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of male performers in gay porn films (5th nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

All the best
I'm off. Nice to have seen you around. :) --Paularblaster (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear editor
Dear editor Fram: Thanks for your concern on making Wikipedia a good thing. It is understanding that some people may be passionate about editing but it is also important to realize that not all of us are here to inflict damage on Wikipedia but to make it a good encyclopedia.

I have noticed that you have been consistently removing images from articles where I have collaborated, you have even removed images from my own Wikipedia User page. Although I respect your commitment to Wikipedia I have found an interesting pattern of behavior on your editions and my collaborations, this being that for some particular reason many of them are being removed by you even if they are in good faith intended to add to the quality of articles.

This is a collaborative encyclopedia and most of us wish to collaborate. In particular I like to collaborate with SVG imagery as it can be seen in my user page.My images are being accused of Original Research. As you might know, editors are encouraged to upload their own drawings to improve the article as long as it illustrates the article without adding susbtantial changes. I would like to invite you to read my response to the deletion of some of my images and I politely remind you that my editions and collaborations are all in good faith and that I didn't start editing in the Wikipedia yesterday, so I am well aware of some guidelines such as WP:OR.

Thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed images from your user page because they were fair use images, which are not allowed outside articles, ever. I removed other images because they did not add anything of value to the articles they illustrated, and because it became clear that most editors supported me in this. Your flags you wanted to introduce on country articles did not get any support. Your edits are in good faith, but that doesn't mean that all of them are useful or welcome. Fram (talk) 08:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Most editors?? Two editors voiced support on leaving the images, only one said no..support??? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Where do you get those numbers? Only Abyssal supported you, NeilN removed them, and Zagalejo took a middle position. On energy beings, another editor supported the removal. Fram (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And for the (earlier) flags you wanted to introduce, no one supported you, many opposed them. Fram (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about the flags, stay on the topic at hand dude..--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 08:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Merridew and threats of being blocked for bringing up Jack Merridew's behavior

 * User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise Ikip (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

fallingrain.com
I didn't want to take the RfC offtopic, but what is wrong with fallingrain.com? Are they scraping some other source or something? Gigs (talk) 05:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally Fallingrain is currently proposed for black listing at the bottom of MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist...I couldn't agree more. Gigs, nearly every falling rain page has incorrect population data (which has been used as a population reference) and the altitude has regularly shown itself to be incorrect compared to google earth. One major one was a coatal village on the western coast of Madagascar which is barely above sealevel yet fallingrain claimed it was 360 metres. It doesn't stop there. The names and spelling ad widely known to often be transliterated incorrectly and the data is 15 years out of date and oftne lists villages/railways etc which no longer exist. The only correct data generally is the coordinates and nearby settlements but even those listed are often settlements which no longer exist or are minimal. Basically linking to that site can be misleading.... Have a good Christmas anyway!  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 13:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Notice
Dear Fram, please note that I cite you at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your AFDs
please consider refraining from submitting AFDs that are obvious merge candidates. The most efficient approach would be to merge them yourself. If you cannot be bothered to do that, you should just leave a merge template. But submitting AFDs that are WP:SNOWed as keep, merge or redirect (i.e. it is clear that they aren't going to be deleted because you don't present an argument for deletion so much as one for merging) are just an unnecessary burden on the AFD backlog. --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

List
Hey Fram, it is obvious that there is support from the community to leave those images. Let it go already. It has been 30 days since you added the RfC. Stop reverting my edits please. Out of all the editors involved in the discussion the majority supported the inclusion. Happy new year.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, majority vs. minority is irrelevant, it is not a votecount but a discussion. Second, as an involved editor, you should not be the one to decide the consensus (niether should I), nor to act upon your self-declared consensus. Third, please follow WP:BRD: when you are reverted, don't redo your edit, but discuss things. Finally, if you do want a votecount, I see Fram, JohnBlackburne, Ash, Plvekamp, ScienceApologist and 2over0 opposing; and Camilo Sanchez, Abyssal, Martin Hogbin, Wikigratia, Aladdin Sane, The Good Locust, and Labongo supporting. That's 6 opposing and 7 supporting, which is when going by votecount a clear "no consensus", not a "support". Fram (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not doing any polling as per wp:poll. However the RfC lasted 30 days and the self removing template is gone. Besides if you are so interested in following the practices of wikipedia guidelines you should not remove the boilerplate, you start a new section.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What has "I am not doing any polling" to do with this? It's an RfC on images you added, and in which you commented. I hope you don't claim to be uninvolved? And reverting an incorrect closure is not against any Wikipedia guidelines. I have not continued to edit the RfC, I have just removed the incorrectly added closure of it. Fram (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I mentioned polling in lieu of your need to make a count on the amount of votes regarding the discussion..that is called polling. check this if you don't know what I mean thanks--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My need? You stated, in your first post; "Out of all the editors involved in the discussion the majority supported the inclusion"... Please stay of my talk page if you can't have a decent discussion. Fram (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Fram, no need for agitation. As it is suggested in wp:stay cool. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Argumentum ad Jimbo
I just wrote the essay Appeals to Jimbo, and I read your argumentum ad Jimbo comment, so couldn't resist adding it to the essay! Nice one, made me laugh :-) Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:194.171.76.11
The vandal you are talking about was a guy I used to know personally (but I haven't seen him for over 2 years), I could give you his name if you want. He is the one who made all these accounts and he kept contacting me with all his sockpuppets (such as Mrlob, Haggawaga Oegawagga, ect.), he did the same on the Dutch wikipedia. I myself didn't know that these were sockpuppets or even that they were all that guy but because of being associated with the first few (talking with them on wiki, them constantly editing my user page) I was suspected aswell. Several cases have been put up here and it was never proven that I was a sockpuppet, they said it was "likely" or "possible" because basicly, I never logged in on his computer and he never logged in on mine but we live in the same city and due to "close geographical location" they suspected I could be a sockpuppet also due to the fact I talked to them (him) a lot at the beginning. But never any solid evidence was put up, this administrator, there was this admin called Chirslk02 who researched the case a lot and he said he was convinced that I was a different person, that's how I was unblocked. I have also never vandalised atricles or been involved in Frisian stuff and making hoaxed and all the kind of things "Mrlob" was doing. On the Dutch wikipedia however the admins took the "likely" result of the checkuser as fact and banned me indefinetly, I tried to explain but they wouldn't listen and there was no admin like Chris there, so I'm permanently banned, but that happened 2-3 years ago. The annoying thing is that every now and then this guy pops up again with new sockpuppets and I was always brought up again, sometimes I was banned for a few days until they realised their mistake, or they contacted me like this. Eventually I helped take down some of his accounts, I don't want him around cause it always brings the chance again of me getting banned, I'm unlucky they called the case "case Kermanshahi...", but I can recognise his style from miles away, so he's unhappy about what I did and that's why he tried to get me banned several times. If there are any further questions I am willing to answer all, if you want to know more about this guy I'm willing to help.

And incase you're interested in my two cents, I tell you that IP adress is definetly him, it's definetly not a school IP cause as you say, he's the only one which uses it and does he sound like a school administrator to you? ... I advise you to have a look at the talk pages of several of his sockpuppets, you can see his defence here is extremely similar to his defence there, he talks in the same manner, it is 100% his style and also the atricles he targets... I'd say keep the IP blocked forever and block it's talk page too, but he'll be back though.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Nataly Dawn
I noticed their was an attempt to create an article for the singer, song-writer, and multi-instrumentalist Nataly Dawn. The notability was apparently a factor, but Jack Conte, her boyfriend and Pomplamoose co-founder has his own page. I ask, why can't she? She has gained a following on the Internet as has Jack Conte and Pomplamoose. Just wondering about the whole thing because I have been thinking about creating a page on her, but wanted to ask because I saw that message of deletion. Mr. C.C. (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going out on a limb here by saying that no response here or on my talk page that her notability is on the same level of Jack Conte and that an article can be created about her. Mr. C.C. (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Fram
I promise you that it will remain deleted. My mistake. Ikip 08:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks. Fram (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Really, sorry. I feel bad about that :( Ikip 08:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Glamorous Monique
Hi there. I had come across the Glamorous Monique article a little while back, and remember doing some tagging and removing some overly-promotional language. I was really surprised to see it deleted under G10, as the version I was familiar with seemed to be the direct polar opposite of an attack page. If reliable sources are the issue (and I enthusiastically agree that they are), then I feel this article would be better served over at Afd. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not an attack page, but an article with contentious (potentially negative) unsourced or very, very poorly sourced material. Stating that people are transsexuals without very good sources is a typical example of the kind of articles that can and should be deleted under WP:BLP. There is nothing wrong with actually being a transsexual, but many peoplewho are not transsexual would be offended to be described like that on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the tone of the article and her official website announcing a song called "The Peoples Tranny", I don't think this is one of those cases. Steamroller Assault (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you believ it is worth restoring? No reliable sources,as far as I could tell, so... Fram (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a possibility that if sent through Afd, an interested editor might find a reliable source or two (print? offline?), considering some of the very specific claims to notability (longest serving transgendered government worker in America, one of the first people to ever go through sex re-assignment surgery, etc). While the article began as an overly-promotional and severely NPOV piece of fluff, if this is the case of a notable person with a poorly-sourced article, I think it's worth a shot. Steamroller Assault (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Allright, restored (plus talk), and sent to AfD. We'll see how it goes. Anyway, thanks for having a polite and friendly discussion about it, it's refreshing :-) Fram (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Abraham (bishop)
Bishops of major churches are per se notable. Send to Afd if you disagree, or merge it. Bearian (talk)
 * A church with (max.) 50,000 adherents is not a major church at all... Fram (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ikip's 'Wikiproject'
I'm not at all happy with this. I agree it was canvassing and he shouldn't be calling it a Wikiproject. Should this be raised at ANI? Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, we can see what he answers to my post, and in any case wait for an ANI report until he is unblocked, so he can easily participate. Fram (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As a note, Ikip got blocked, and also, I've decided to join the project. ++Lar: t/c 12:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then please turn it into a real one. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First let's see what happens when I try to join. If there's any balking, off to XfD it goes. if not, then yes, it needs reshaping (and your help would be welcomed as well). The idea of helping new article writers better reference things and make sure their articles are compliant is an excellent one (although it may overlap other projects and initiatives) but including only certain community members is just Not On. ++Lar: t/c 12:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I may well help if you join and he makes it open and official. It would be great if we could get new writers to properly reference! Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Put it on your watchlist and give it a bit of time. It either changes or it goes, agreed? ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Eternity of the world
Hi. I was doing some research early this morning using the article Eternity of the world. It was proving useful, but now I find it has been deleted. I'm not intending to get into the reasons why that was, but could you possibly supply me with the list of references that the article had? It really would be very useful to me. Hoping you can help. Poltair (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks Poltair (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (copied from article talk) I've restored this article and the talk. It was properly deleted under WP:CSD by User:Fram as work of a banned editor, but after review of the material, I am willing to stand behind the edits. Also, a review of the history will show edits by others that I deem "substantial" enough to qualify, although Fram may not have felt that way. ++Lar: t/c 11:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)  (note the capitalization is lowercase w, I've taken the liberty of correcting the header of this section, but not Poltair's words, I leave that to him/her.)

I'm reverting your de-links of Latin West
Hi Fram, I'm reverting your de-links to Latin West. If you want to discuss this I'd be happy to. Regards, Paul August &#9742; 15:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please only revert the correct ones, e.g. there should be no links in section headers. I've expanded the Latin West article to make it clear that the earlier focus on Christianity was only one part of the meaning of it: the current redirect created by you is correct, the earlier one wasn't. Fram (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I've re-linked only where appropriate, you're welcome to check my work. Paul August &#9742; 15:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century
FYI: I've reviewed the content of the article The General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century which you reasonably deleted under WP:CSD. I've restored the article and I'm willing to stand behind the current version. Paul August &#9742; 23:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox pictures
why there will be no pictures representing famous Dutch people? 196.217.18.251 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed numerous times on the talk page of the article. No agreement could be found on whether these people were in any way representative or typical Dutch. There was e.g. a lack of women, and adding a Jewish immigrant from Austria (or Germany?), i.e. Anne Frank, makes it only clear that the description of the article on "Dutch people" doesn't match the image many people have of Dutch people. In short, every collage of such pictures caused new discussion, no agreement could be reached, and an anonymous, everyday picture had the preference of most editors. Fram (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Feed Notifier deletion.
I see that you deleted the Feed Notifier page. I'd like to know what makes it less qualified than any of the other news aggregators listed on Comparison of feed aggregators. Perhaps you should delete most of those too (those developed by individual software engineers?) Frankly I did a better job of outlining Feed Notifier's capabilities than most people in the comparison tables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.fogleman (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Still waiting for your clarification. Michael.fogleman (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your brand new software had no indication of any notability. It is in general not a good idea to write articlesabout yourself or things you are closely affiliated to, like things you have developed. You can check WP:COI for more on this. Other articles may have the same problems or worse, I don't know, I have only checked yours as a new article. Fram (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The software is over a year old and was downloaded 5000 times last year. Though it did only recently get a dedicated website.  I'm not sure what qualifies software as notable aside from a third party writing the article.  Anyway, I do understand the conflict of interest.  However, A7 says that it does not apply to "articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works" so it seems to be the wrong code?  The main reason I'm upset/confused is that this software seems to be held to a different notability standard than other news aggregators listed on that page.  I wouldn't have created the page if it didn't look like so many other less popular aggregators had their own page. Michael.fogleman (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced stubs
Please look at the documentation of unreferenced. It describes (twice) that there is no general agreement that unsourced articles that are already marked as stubs should have the "unreferenced tag" added. The tag tends to overwhelm the text of the article in stubs, while its benefits are entirely hypothetical. I routinely remove unreferenced from stubs on my watchlist, and will continue to do so when I edit them.

Really, you should get bot approval before making large-scale tagging runs. One point of that is to help detect when something seems like it might be a good idea to you, but doesn't actually have community consensus – like tagging all unreferenced stubs with the unreferenced tag. Please do get approval before doing any more runs of this task. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not need bot approval for anything of this sort, I am doing (quite slow) AWB tasks I previously did manually. I will get bot apporval before I use a bot, not for anything else. I will probably start an RfC about this ridiculous rule on the unref tag. Fram (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The rollback was completely an error; I didn't even realized I did it, so it must have happened when I looked at a page history. I apologize for it.


 * Bot approval is not only about speed; it is also about the scale of the project. According to WP:BOT, "Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired." In this case, there is not a clear consensus that stubs should be tagged as unreferenced; in fact documentation of the template you re adding already discourages it, and this has been discussed on the talk page of the template recently.


 * Really, I think you are chasing windmills by adding the unreferenced tag in the first place. The huge backlogs indicate that this template is not actually useful for anything except generating backlogs. But for non-stubs I just ignore the template; they really aren't an issue to me. On stubs, the template is especially dubious, because it's silly to take an article that is already tagged as woefully incomplete and then add more tags that also come down to "this article needs to be expanded". So I remove the unreferenced tag from stubs when I see it, but I don't make any special effort to remove it from all stubs. I'm not planning to go through and revert your edits en masse.


 * However, you do need to look into bot approval whenever you are thinking of tagging hundreds of articles (with pretty much any template). If there was really consensus to do the tagging, someone else would probably have done it already. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong on both accounts. The tags are useful, and it is not because it hadn't happend before that there is no consensus for it. I created the BLPunsourced tag, and singlehandedly tagged 99% of the first 10,000 entries of the BLP unsourced category, often doing hundreds a day. Many of those were stubs. After a few months and those 10,000 taggings, it got picked up by other people, and a bot (not run by me) tagged most of the next 40,000. Now, this tag and its huge backlog has lead to the whole unsourced BLP deletion RFC, mobilizing large parts of the community, and the backlog actually gets tackled and thousands of articles get sourced. From your reply, it looks to me as if you just oppose the template in general, and enforce this on stubs because there you have somewhat more support. I don't believe that the current situation is the same as it was five years ago though, and that community opinion about unsourced articles has changed considerably. Fram (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't oppose the template in general; I just think it's useless because there is no evidence that the backlogs can ever be cleared out. But I have no objections if other people spend their time adding it instead of adding actual references to articles in their area of expertise. On stubs, though, the template actually has some negative effects, and the same lack of positive ones, so I remove it from those as I see it. On non-stubs that I edit, there are references anyway, so it's a moot point.


 * AWB in general encourages people to do mass tagging actions that they should avoid. In this case, I'm sure you'll wait to the end of the RFC before continuing, anyway, so the RFC is a fine substitute for bot approval. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Illuminationism
Hi Fram, I was wondering about the wisdom of deleting this. I can't vouch for the contents, because I haven't checked them, but it looks fairly decent, and we don't have a huge number of decent philosophy articles. Would you consider letting it stand? SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 23:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone is free to undelete it if they want to take the responsibility for the contents, and have no problem aiding a serial sockpuppeteering banned user. I will not do it myself though. Fram (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Give a Little Bit
I reverted your addition of listing the song as a part of Wikipedia Comics. I don't see how it is. --MartinezMD (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. I was tagging all songs listed in the category:Superman music as being part of the comics project (Superman = comics, logical so far), when I noticed that that category had entries like Rock around the Clock or Roll over Beethoven. I then only added the comics project to the "real" superman songs (those with a clear connection to or inspiration from the comic, like Kryptonite), but forgot to revert the "Give a little bit" one. Thanks! Fram (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial referee
Would it be possible you would have a glance at the page History of the Walloon Movement: I regret a participant remove verifiable informations of great Walloon scholars. I think it very impossible following the rules of Wp. But I feel that I am not able to avoid a war-edition. So I answer only that I am not happy with that. Is it possible you act as a (non-official) referee? Sorry but I think I am not able to resolve myself the problem. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC) and other things as the word "occupation" I think very important...

thanks
Okip BLP Contest 16:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Incarnations of Immortality
Just curious as to why you added this article which is about a series of eight fantasy novels to WikiProject Comics? I have read all but the last novel and I don't see any connection to WikiProject Comics, thanks. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There were also some graphic novel adaptations /spin offs of the series, e.g. this one. While it isn't mentioned in the article yet (although the cat for the publisher is added), it is something that should be added, and where the comics project may be of help. Fram (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Thanks  --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Disrespect
Dear Fram (or whatever your name is),

I will report you to the hiearchy for disrespect above all, interventions without a consensus etc.

You could have, at least, add your arguments - not simply jump to a conclussion and impose your will. That's bullining I am talking about. And I do have ways to stop that.

I will therfore revert your changes and you are free to report me. Actually - do so and let us see.

I had enough of likes like you. They are destroying Wikipedia.

Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

College Presidents
You've been placing BLP tags on them, and I;ve been following after and sourcing them at least minimally. It takes me about 3 minutes each, from G News Archive, using no automatic tools. Recently you asked me to check on a problem academic  bio, so I suggest to you that  perhaps we might work more effectively if you did the necessary quick check for WP:V instead of just tagging, since practice is they are all notable, and I worked on any thing you could not quickly handle. .    DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going through all articles about persons to check if they are sourced. I do a few thousand a day like this (through AWB). I just tag them, so anyone interested can source them. It's just a coincidence that I am now going through college presidents, before that I had criminals (G10 mostly), BYU alumni, scientists, ... and next may be soccer players or voice actors. It's more convenient for me now to focus on the tagging than to switch between looking for unsourced ones and sourcing them. Fram (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We often have different ideas, but considering the amount of disagreement on issues we have had in the past including many issues involving BLP, I had hoped that here we could find some way for us to work together, in order to see each others' perspective and to build a basis of increased good will for the future.   My approach is that we should try to keep additional items from getting on the list.  But then, that's what I'm accustomed to, because it's what I do routinely at prod and speedy patrol, It takes longer than what some people there do, just remove the tag for deletion and hope someone else will fix the problem.  A person who tags without trying to fix and a person who un-tags without trying to fix will each see things in an incomplete way.  I think of keeping and deleting as reciprocal, & do a similar amount of each (actually, I spend more time on the fixes, because they need more; I delete about 10 articles a day and usually fix 5; I have been responding to the BLP initiative by trying to fix 10-- even though it has taken time away from equally important projects.  But at least,  doing them in subject groups, not alphabetically,  has the considerable advantage of letting people who know the subject fix a batch. How do you select them? Have you thought about notifying the wikiprojects when you're doing a batch  in their area?    DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going through Category:people, and use subcats (recursive) in AWB. I have just finished all "members of organizations", which varies from college presidents over IRA members and Royal Society fellows to yakuza bosses. It's not really targeted on any one or two projects. Anyway, I do see your perspective, an I have no problem with anyone focusing on my BLP tags and adding sources. I try to get the problem and the backlog covered as good as possible, so that we at some point can claim that the vast, vast majority of older BLP articles are either sourced or tagged for sourcing. For the moment, no one knows how many untagged and unsourced ones theer are still floating around, and because it varies wildly from category to category, I have no idea either (but so far, the majority was already tagged). Fram (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that your auto searching can be incorrect - see Ian Brooker for an example where a reference is in a template, and as such wasn't detected by your AWB sweep.The-Pope (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was aware of that, but searching for Ian Brooker gave no results through that reference: . So I tagged it as no sources...

Stop please
RE: Stop reverting my edits. I only removed that sentence for clarity. If you don't like my changes, revert then, strike the comments I removed, but don't revert them. Okip  13:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact that you don't make sense in your last sentence: don't change three days old comments you made, and to which people have already responded. Fram (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is getting old, I may not be an admin, and I may not have the popular view of veteran editors, but I know what is going on. You are attempting to silence me with a 3RR. Don't modify my comments again. You can be blocked with less that 3RR. You are aware of that. Changing and tweaking comments is common, so is selective enforcement of rules, which you are showing in abundance with your piety reversions.
 * If you were really concerned about the integrity of the page, you would not have supported the technical disruption, removing the items which we are all supposed to be voting on.
 * You are supposed to be an admin, please act like one, not an editor, edit warrior attempting to get a 3rr on someone's views you disagree with. Okip  13:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Tweaking comments is not usual three days later, adding bolded parts is changing the original message. As for the "original disruption", have you tried discussing that with the editor who did this? I didn't think so... As for "you can be blocked with less than 3RR", no kidding? You'ld better be careful then... As for my "piety reversion", thanks! Piety: "In spiritual terminology, piety is a virtue." Fram (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So "piety reversions" would be reverts done in good faith ;) Jack Merridew 20:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Laura Carlsen
Hi. You PRODded this article more than two years ago, and it was deleted. An IP has now requested restoration, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to take it to AfD. The IP says that s/he will update the article, and I have given advice about notability and copyright. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)